March , 2003
Roseann B. Mackechnie, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
United States Court House
40 Foley Square
New York, N.Y. 10007
Re: Plaintiff/Appellant’s Request for Permission to Waive
6 Minute Oral Argument
Peia v. Bankruptcy Court, Coan, et als
Court of Appeals Docket No. 02-6138
Court Below: U.S.D.C. District of Conn.
Docket # 3:00CV2310(PCD)
Enclosed herewith for filing is 1 original and 10 copies of Plaintiff/Appellant’s Request for Permission to Waive
6 Minute Oral Argument in the form of a letter/ certification. Please file same.
As a courtesy to the Court, I have provided three CD-Rom’s for the three Judge panel (I can make more copies if you or they would like) to facilitate their review of my filings herein. In light of the “grave reason” requirement for adjournment, the brevity of the time allotted for argument given this busy Court’s presumed heavy caseload, and the likelihood that a request for adjournment owing to the lack of funds sufficient to either travel to the aforementioned Court or the Second Circuit Video Argument Centers (I have exactly $89.26 before copies hereof, and am on general relief) would be unfavorably received, I have made the instant request with the presumption that the same will not militate against me for so doing in light of the meritorious action involved herein, the clarity of liabi-lity of defendants as set forth and documented, along with the clear predication for criminal prosecution of the subject defendants.
I have initiated calls to both the Office of the U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft (it should be reiterated that former Senator Ashcroft and now Attorney General Ashcroft had been and is in receipt of probative documents warranting criminal prosecution of the subject defendants and liability thereof), and pursuant to their direction, the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, who directed me to Ann Nevins, toward the end of hopefully resolving through financial settlement this very clear case involving RICO predicate, particularly, and other culpable acts. I have not received even one returned call (of several to Nevins) from Nevins despite the fact that criminal prosecution is warranted of defendants within her district, among others. I am the attorney on this case and I do believe the same to be a violation of attorney ethics (although to anyone reviewing this case or from outside the “profession” it is clear that “attorney ethics” are but a fiction in America today). I am solely interested in the financial resolution of this case consistent with a meaningful rule of law which should be an imperative for America (and courts) today given this country’s insistance upon same from other nations. I have refrained from updating my most current of websites, viz.,
having initiated said calls and as I discern whether the instant case can be resolved consistent with a meaningful rule of law and in light of the imminent exposure to “harms way” of the U.S. troops (quite separate from the bureaucrats) for whom I have the highest personal regard and back 100%. Finally, it should be noted that the exhibit to plaintiff’s reply to brief of defendant USA concerning assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Lester before J.Matz and USA’s default has not yet been scanned into the web site.
Also, as a further courtesy to the Court, I reiterate that I have under the hyper-text link, Plaintiff/Appel- lant’s Appeal [scroll down the links (click to view) frame], set forth the subject filings herein at the following web sites (I have had to get new web sites owing to hacking and other not unrelated problems. I continue to include more than one inasmuch as defendant USA/operatives, “interested parties/defendant”, etc., frequently have “hacked” same, ie., delete my index html (or other) file(s) on the server, etc., requiring my constant attention thereto) to facilitate review thereof; viz.,
Thanking you, I am
Very Truly yours,
Albert L. Peia, Plaintiff/Appellant, Pro Se
P.O. Box 370434
Reseda, CA 91337-0434
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL